Sorry if i disturbed you with that word, Jon, my first language is not english and maybe i made a literal translation.

As for the “…we are trying to make this effort self-sustaining so it is not a charity for poor artists, is a commercial venue…”, I always understood the poor artists as in ‘poverty + artists’. We don’t want to give them money because nobody else will do so, we want people to realise they have some great work and that the time, effort and skill they put into it is definitely worth the money/Linden dollars.

As for the ‘there is always a risk’, it’s exact the same reply as mine to Cyanides remark that full perms are 3v|L. There will always be a way to steal textures that are provided on the internet. The trade-off is either do not expose your work at all and it will not be stolen as nobody can see/reach it, or expose it, take pride of it and take with that the risk that someone will steal it. It’s not saying that it’s ok that people steal it, just that the risk will always be there, regardless how good your artist agreement is (the thief does not need to be a gallery, it could just as well be a RL TV station as Tobie and the like experienced, or another SL resident, or..). It’s not doubting about the creator’s rights, it doubting if there is a possiblity to completely secure you work without not letting it leave your hard disk.

(But then again, that’s my interpretation of The Book of Jon IV-V =)

About the agreement i think it is ok, and i’m sure The Cannery team is working on it to make it even better, just wanted to remark someone can accept it or not depending his/her needs or thoughts.

About that “copy-pasted” conversation, RightAsRain said things like: “…we are trying to make this effort self-sustaining so it is not a charity for poor artists, is a commercial venue…” or “…you put out a photo in SL people can immediately take a photo of it…or put it on Flickr…same issue…so there is always risk…there is a trade-off here… (talking about rights over SLphotos)” and some others that CAN be understood as a contempt. Personally i don’t know if “poor artists” means “bad creators” or “miserable artists”, and to doubt about the creator’s rights over SLphotography just because is “easy to copy” to justify the position of Rezzable in the controversial of the Artist Agreement i think is not the best position. And that’s why i said: “Anyway, i should ask directly to him, just to have a clearer idea about his opinion.”.

I am not sure what gave you or anyone the idea that we have contempt for SLphotographers as creators. It is certainly not the case and our attempt to build a showcase venue for SLphotographers is a clear (and expensive btw) proof point. Actions speak louder than “copy-pasted” conversations.

Also, when we used the agreement first time around no one made any comments on it. So we were more than a little surprised this time to hear such strong reactions. Some of the points were interesting and we have adjusted accordingly. Some of the comments were also not constructive and really just personal attacks.

We would hope that you would see through all the noise and continue to participate in our shows. We certainly would like to see you work on display there and continue to try to help you make some Lindens on the process.

About the “agreement”, i was talking with Sho about it, i think is (of course) totally legal, and you explain it quite well here, anyway you can like it or not, so you will accept it or not, is a personal choice, maybe Cyanide post was a bit scary for a lot of people. Anyway this agreement is not worse or “harder” for artist than other gallery ones, like “Avatrait”.

Some days ago i read a “copy-pasted” conversation including some comments by RightAsRain, that comments can be understood as a contempt for SLphotographers as creators. Personally that’s what made me feel a bit reluctant to show images again at The Cannery, not the Artist Agreement. Anyway, i should ask directly to him, just to have a clearer idea about his opinion.